1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition of immoveable property. The suit was brought in the Munsiff''s Court at Bajitpore, and one of the objections raised in the defence was that the suit was not cognizable by the Munsiff, as the value of the entire 16 annas of the property, of which the plaintiffs claim a share was in excess of the limits of the Munsiffs pecuniary jurisdiction. The Courts below have over-ruled that objection holding that, as the value of the share claimed was within the limits of the Munsiff''s jurisdiction, the suit was brought in the proper Court; and then, on the merits, they have found in favour of the plaintiffs and given them a decree.
2. In second appeal the only ground urged is that the Munsiff had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, because jutisdiction should be determined not with reference to the value of the share claimed by the plaintiffs in a suit for pardon, but with reference to the value of the entire property sought to be divided; and in support of this contention several cases have been cited of which we need only refer to three; viz., Baidya Nath Addya v. Makhar Lal Addya ILR 17 Cal. 680; Vydimtha v. Subramanya ILR 8 Mad. 235, and Nagamma v. Subba ILR 11 Mad. 197. But in the view we take of the provisions of section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887) we do not think it necessary to determine the questions raised. For, granting that the Munsiff had no jurisdiction to try this suit originally, before the objection as to jurisdiction can be of any avail to the appellant, it is necessary for the appellant, under subsection (2) of section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, to satisfy this Court as to the second of the two matters referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of the same section, that is that the undervaluation of the suit has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit on its merits. Upon this point the learned vakil for the appellant is not in a position to satisfy us. There being nothing to show that the disposal of the suit on the ments has been prejudicial to the appellant by reason of the under-valuation of the suit, and there being no other ground raised in this appeal, we must, as laid down in subsection (2) of section 11, dispose of the appeal as if there had been no defect of jurisdiction in the Court of first instance, and dismiss the appeal with costs.
